In particular, the mere fact that someone has benefitted from the actions of another does not in itself entitle that person to compensation. As Dickson J. (as he then was) stated in Petkus v. Becker, 1980 CanLII 22 (SCC), [1980] 2 S.C.R. 834: “The common law has never been willing to compensate a plaintiff on the sole basis that his actions have benefitted another.” In Petkus, for example, the court ruled that it would be unjust for one common law partner to have sole ownership of property in circumstances where the other partner contributed unpaid labour to his business for over 19 years, where he freely accepted that benefit which made it possible for him to acquire property and where he ought to have realized that his common law partner reasonably expected to receive an interest in the property in exchange for that labour.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.